Well, maybe I am quite a crazy guy, I had come from sciences related to math area, and althought a lot of people which I studied with would get sick with @Cellmold and @Legion discussion, I quite enjoy this philosophical discussion, this is the second topic which it happens and I am a happy reader on these off-topics. I quite appreciatte the tolerance for MODs for this.

Quote Originally Posted by Cellmold View Post
I think you're right about the future of typology, but my position is that this would be a result of accepting more and more nebulous and unscientific ideas into the realm of the soft sciences, which has been an ongoing trend for a while now. Though empiricism has its limitations and flaws, it is still probably the best method for helping to develop out and determine ideas, even for less hard science areas. My issue with type is that all the data seems to rely upon a set of assumptions, such as people of a certain job testing as certain types more frequently, but the problem is that descriptions of those types and their cognitive functions are conveniently set up to match the kinds of mentalities that one would have to adopt in order to perform certain tasks and jobs. And people can be more adaptable than we give credit for, not to mention a lack of self-awareness leading to incorrect assumptions about your own nature.

This leads into expanding on what you asked about. So what I mean is (probably disappointingly) simple. The abstract ideals a person might hold, like not harming others, not being underhanded, lying or manipulative, treating others with dignity, respect, fairness and equality, not letting your worst emotions and excesses get the better of you etc.... and then the higher ideals for the benefit of human beings in general, which tend to arise out of those personal virtues, well I've come to understand through exposure that they often don't always hold up in the face of the actual world in which we have to live.

This is not to say one should abandon virtue or higher ideals, but that they are very easy to corrupt and the most rigid ones do not survive contact with certain situations. For example, sometimes you find yourself moved to a violence you might abhor due to the circumstances you find yourself in.

And in general I find people are more given to abandoning those ideals than holding onto them and it seems very easy, on average, to discard them when necessary. Picture the nightmare scenario of having to save either yourself or someone else, now imagine that this came about because of a sudden and terrifying event, whether man-made or natural, it doesn't matter. If you've ever seen people trying to get away from something and trampling each other to do so, it's hard to imagine turning back the tide with good words and intentions.

I'm not saying that we are inherently evil or good, just that we are extremely flawed and a lot of the ideals people hold are untested against that flawed nature and would have to either adapt or break under certain circumstances. Another problem is that intelligence is not always a barrier against cruel acts, character matters as much, if not more.

From a neurological point of view our frontal lobes play an important part in determining, and actually inhibiting, the other more primitive areas of the brain which give rise to these cruel and often desperate acts, from areas like the amygdala that, under duress, can suddenly consume the more reasonable functioning areas of the brain with fight or flight responses. Hence why it's called an amygdala hijack.

And we have the power of denial, which is incredibly strong in human beings and I think that allows us to build civilisations while having large swathes of the population who can barely function in a civil manner. But most survive through denial, by avoiding situations that would challenge any ideas of civility and notions of virtue, by putting our faith in systems that rely on bureaucracy and precedence, which are lumbering and slow to act and even slower to resolve.

We exist in a flawed relationship with ourselves and that needs to be taken into account when considering virtues, ideals, ethics and morality. And maybe the endless struggle is to fight with those cruel parts of our nature, perhaps never knowing any peace from it.
I know Im going to be a little bit shallow here, but I think that you always expect people who try to be good, virtuous and idealists are trying to be perfect people, like there is a chained link between being perfect and being good, virtuous, idealistic, which is not actually realistic (ok, maybe the entire discussion isnt much realistic at all but I think you get the point). Being good or virtuous or idealistic is not really about being perfect, so, even in the Jesus example you were most talking about perfection than being good.

In this good/evil discussion, there is always an expectancy of good to be perfect and evil to be flawed, but the flawed and perfection, in most terms, arent related to this. Someone that does quite a perfect work can be evil, and someone who does a poor work, has his own struggles, difficulties, can be a good person either. It is realistic to expect a good, virtuous person or whatver, has his own flaws, her own weakness, and etc..